Slashdot Mirror

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Sure enough, we hold these truths to be self-evident... One being that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The Declaration of Independence plainly states that our rights come from our Creator, and that the government exists at the consent of the governed for the purpose of securing these rights. It's pretty straight-forward.

Off the top of my head, I cannot think of another first world nation with such a statement in their founding documents. Like it or not, this country was founded on theistic principles - primarily Christian at that - and was integral to the reasoning for the founding. Our rights came from the Creator, not from a King, or from a government.

It's legal to aid someone (IE pull the cops off them) if you believe they are being unlawfully arrested. It is legal to resist an unlawful arrest to the point of killing an officer if necessary. I think this qualifies, since besides the fact that he did not need to be arrested, the use of such grossly excessive force constitutes an assault and in the free states where your right to defend yourself is recognized, you're allowed to shoot people to stop one in progress if you have to. I think a student bum-rush would be a better alternative to that though.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

"Every time I see this argument, they leave out every mention of the fact that the wire taps happen when there's a known terrorist on the end of the line.

Every time. "

How could you possibly know that? How could you possibly know that?

Are the men who run these programs infallible? They never make a mistake?

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
- James Madison, Federalist #51

Three works you have to read:

'The Great Game' by Peter Hopkirk

'A Peace to End All Peace' by David Fromkin

'Hamilton' by Ronald Chernow

Of all the books I've read the last few years, these all deeply changed my perspective.
However, I think you ought to look at Locke's Second Treatise on Government. You would do well to understand the Glorious Revolution as well. With that era, the end of the thinking that God participated in the political process ended in the West (for the most part.) Thus, politics became the affairs of men.

Do us all a favor and worry less about Israel and more about your own affairs. Crying because Israel has success is no way to get ahead.
And instead realize that the first precept in any successul organization is trust. That's true in religion, politics and sport. No trust, no gain.

And how do you propose the US government enforce the writ of habeas corpus for people living in countries outside US jurisdiction? You may be technically correct, but that isn't particularly meaningful in this case. Although I would note the preamble says the constitution is established for WE the People, which suggests very much it is intended for the people of the United States and not just for anybody on the planet, but I'm really neither here nor there on the issue and can see both sides of the argument. While I may agree with you in spirit that everybody on the world possesses inalienable rights, it is simply not possible or practical for the US government to see that everybody outside US jurisdiction have those rights properly afforded to them. Unless you are suggesting we are morally obligated to engage in an epic level of interventionism the whole world over...

Another point: if you look at Article I, Section 9, we that Habeas Corpus is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right.

http://constitution.org/constit_.htm
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

So anyways talking about inalienable human rights actually does NOT cover habeas corpus, since it is a privilege, not a right.

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Once again, ignorance is king in the majority of mines. No offense or anything there. Since it seems so hard for most people to figure out exactly what "general welfare" means (which it is pretty clear) we should look at what the original writers thought: James Madison: With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. --- If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare... they may appoint teachers in every state... The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America. - James Madison ---- http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm That is an excellent thing to read as well. The "general welfare" phrase is self explanatory. Do not pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you like and do not like, and make it to mean what you think it should mean. To provide for the general welfare is something that is outlined in the rest of Article 1 section 8. The "provide for the common defense" is outlined there and other areas, as well. The fact it appears to be a loose term does not mean it is so. Look at the other terms, such as providing for the common defense, and realize they are layed out in the constitution as well.

Guns have done nothing to prevent violations of our fundamental rights.

Is voting a fundamental right in your eyes?

It is in mine.

In fact, those who own guns are more likely to let the government get away with worse transgressions.

Those without are powerless to stop it.

LK

I think you forgot Nicolo Machiavelli's required reading for any programmer or BOFH, The Prince .

Department of Energy has filed a patent...
 

Isn't is a bit disturbing that the government files patents to prevent us from using stuff that we paid them to invent?

I would be remiss not taking a free shot at Contemporary Conservatives' bare butts, attired in full dress uniform hospital gowns, when they come into my line of sight.

As Slashdotters reparse the Forbes article, not one seems to realise just why they used term "intellectual property". Could it possibly be that as a publisher, they are intent upon making copyrights interchangeable with patent protection?

Conservatives often rally around the concept of "original intent". Nothing could be more absurd than to posit that Contemporary Conservatives actually practise what they preach.

Originalise This MFs!:

"Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases but it ought to be temporary, because under that limitation a sufficient recompence and encouragement may be given. The limitation is particularly proper in the case of inventions, because they grow so much out of preceding ones that there is the less merit in the authors and because for the same reason, the discovery might be expected in a short time from other hands.

[. . .]

In all cases of monopoly, not excepting those specified in favor of authors & inventors, it would be well to reserve to the State, a right to terminate the monopoly by paying a specified and reasonable sum. This would guard against the public discontents resulting from the exorbitant gains of individuals, and from the inconvenient restrictions combined with them. This view of the subject suggested, the clause in the bill relating to J. Rumsey in the Virga Legislature in the year 178_ providing that the State might cancel his privilege by paying him ten thousand dollars and to secure him agst the possibility of a payment in depreciated medium, then a prevalent apprehension, it was proposed that the sum should be paid in metal & that of a specified weight & fineness."

James Madison - Monopolies Perpetuities Corporations Ecclesiastical Endowments

Free Mickey Mouse!

"It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It' would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself ; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He wh

In a fit of boredom I decided it would be a good idea to test out old documents from the USA's history. First I check out Paine's Common Sense. 97% of authenticity. That's fine. Then I stick in the Declaration of Independence. It has a 36.1% chance of being authentic. Guess our founders were robots...

The Welfare clause was written to give people the chance for equal opportunity by preventing governments from harming their ability to provide for themselves.

Oddly enough, the Founders disagree with you, and the Supreme Court agreed re: General Welfare. I have no idea where you got your bizzare interpretation of the welfare clause, but please don't just point me to mises.org or lewrockwell.com for your justification.

The Welfare clause was written to give people the chance for equal opportunity by preventing governments from harming their ability to provide for themselves.

Oddly enough, the Founders disagree with you, and the Supreme Court agreed re: General Welfare. I have no idea where you got your bizzare interpretation of the welfare clause, but please don't just point me to mises.org or lewrockwell.com for your justification.

Actually, no, what she says (assuming from the handle "Queen B" that your correspondent is female) is completely and utterly wrong headed. The purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the Legislature and the Executive, to keep their power from becoming absolute (regardless of any "authorizations for the use of force" they may try to distort into martial law).

The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the laws, in the light of the Constitution. The Constitution enshrines rights against unreasonable search and seizure and other rights that taken together all require an underlying right to privacy, just as the establishment clause, the freedom of speech, and the freedom to assemble taken together all require an underlying right to freedom of thought (i.e., that you can't criminalize an idea).

They're applying straightjacketed fundamentalist thought - the kind of thought that believes the sun must circle the earth because the Bible says so, that the earth must have been created in 6 days because the Bible says so, that the earth is only 6010 years old, give or take a few hundred years, because the Bible says so - the presumption that the only thing a text can mean is exactly and only what the text says to the dumbest, most unperceptive reader: no metaphors, no similes, no implications, everything must be in black and white. What's particularly amusing about applying this kind of thought to the Constitution is that we have 1. an entire amendment dedicated to denying this kind of interpretation, and 2. a commentary on the Constitution, written in part by two of its principal authors (Hamilton and Madison), which explicitly says that they are most concerned about the possibility that the judicial system would be compromised by precisely the argument these nit wits are making, that the judiciary doesn't make law. Yes, Hamilton and Madison did later in life express disdain toward some of the decisions of the judiciary - but that was on issues of interest to themselves, at a time when they were no longer capable of maintaining the kind of detatchment that was necessary to write the Constitution in the first place.

Meanwhile the Republicans are using litmus tests to limit their choices to the court - using the powers of the Executive and the Legislature to pack the court and undermine its independence (not that it hasn't been done before, and by liberals) - and doing so while claiming to honor the true intentions of the founders, and claiming that Democrats are trying to impose THEIR political beliefs on the court (ever hear of Harriet Miers? Why do you think she was withdrawn? Because she didn't pass the political litmus tests - of the Conservatives)!

Their hypocrisy is monumental; and no one calls them on it because they fear the ignorant mob into which the Republican party have transformed the electorate with their Goeringesque propaganda tactics. Listen to the arguments that Gonzalez has used to try to justify the actions of this administration!

Do you honestly believe that the torture in Abu Ghraib was the work of a bunch of renegades? Why did Gonzalez write an opinion supporting the use of psychological torture tactics as legal BEFORE Abu Ghraib came out? Why did the administration withdraw from the International Criminal Court BEFORE Abu Ghraib came out? Because they planned it! When the administration claims that the authorization for use of force and the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces (not commander in chief of the civilian population - the Constitution is quite clear in that distinction, despite Mr. Gonzalez's sophistries) give him the right to nullify the main requirements of a law explicitly passed to regulate the actions of the executive in a time of conflict because it grants him powers to prosecute a conflict, at the very same time they continue to make jokes about Clinton's arguments about "

That's called the Saddam approach.

Actually, it's the Machiavelli approach- Saddam was merely a bad student of it (in that he left witnesses behind....to testify at the current trial).

I have little doubt they would subscribe to the 'living document' theory, were they alive today.

I have little doubt they would decry the living document theory. The founders put in place a mechanism, e.g. the amendment process to allow the constitution to change as needed. That is the ONLY part which makes it a living document. They would not IMO support reinterpreting amendments due to the changing nature of the times. Doing so makes a mockery of the consitution.

Example the second amendment. If you read the federalist papers and other documents it is clear that the intent was to protect the citizens right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. Not hunting, defense against tyranny. To interpret it any other way is disingenuous.(search for "The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall" in the link above to see what I mean.)

If however any citizen believes that this is no longer necessary, they have the option of working to amend the constitution to change it. Why is this not done? Because its alot easier to say oh its a "living document" that we can reinterpret rather than amending it. It is law for the lazy, power hungry, and inept.

The comments so far show a remarkable misunderstanding of elections and vote counting.

First read your constitution, Article 1 Section 4. Yes the Feds can make changes to the system but each state has primary responsible for the way elections are done in their state. http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm If they want to roll dice they can.

Second, I'm only familiar with the way elections are done where I live but it appears that very few of you have ever worked an election at a polling place. I doubt elections are much different in other locations.

Everything, voting machines etc, is sealed with a seal by reps from each party before we get it at the poling place. Both parties accompany the delivery and setup of the voting machines.

The status of each machine is recorded before voting takes place.

Everyone voting is counted. If, at the end of voting, that count doesn't match the numbers from the voting machines then everything is recounted.

Votes cast on each machine are tallied on paper and electronically. The total number of votes on the machine are also counted mechanically. If those numbers don't add up properly then everything is recounted.

Totals from paper and electronically are recorded on paper by reps from each party and signed by the worker at the polling place.

Both parties seal everything with a seal before it leaves the poling place.

Both parties accompany all materials back to the central vote tallying location.

Back up to the first part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United State"

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
Has interesting commentary.

like the FBI has never killed anyone whom they were snooping on?

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm
http://www.kevinboone.com/citizens_arrest.html
http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/criminal.justice/ci tarr.htm

  Note: varies from state to state.

Its called a citizens arrest and in most states it is quite legal and depending on what state you live in it is your legal obligation to arrest that neighbor.

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm
http://www.ou.edu/oupd/selfarr2.htm

Tuesday, Dec. 12--The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7-2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5-4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy. Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, "the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

The first thing which strikes our attention is, that the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate. This will scarcely, however, be considered as a point upon which any comparison can be grounded; for if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York.
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.

The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office, and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own Constitution in respect to our own judges.

Tuesday, Dec. 12--The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7-2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees. The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5-4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy. Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, "the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

The first thing which strikes our attention is, that the executive authority, with few exceptions, is to be vested in a single magistrate. This will scarcely, however, be considered as a point upon which any comparison can be grounded; for if, in this particular, there be a resemblance to the king of Great Britain, there is not less a resemblance to the Grand Seignior, to the khan of Tartary, to the Man of the Seven Mountains, or to the governor of New York.
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.

The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office, and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own Constitution in respect to our own judges.

Sloppy? Not really. We use republic in a very specific sense that matches how the term was used in the formation of our republic - Madison's Federalist Paper #10 comes to mind:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union....The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The meaning of words - and fashions - change. However, Madison was accurately identifying the issue that traditional notions of democracy need to include safeguards to protect minorities. Whether you call this representative democracy or republic doesn't much matter - except to people like me who believe representative democracy is an oxymoron. Democracy has traditionally meant majority rule. You don't get that with a representative system of government. So, it should be called something else - which is why we use republic.

Thank goodness our Founding Fathers had more balls than the average /.-er.

Really? I thought the US was founded with the ideals of liberty and democracy.

Yea but that's America's history, most of which americans don't even know or understand.

Excusing evil and corruption by claiming others are *really* the cause is a bit... silly. It's like ripping off your neighbor because there are no cops around, and other people robbed your neighbor last year anyway, so if you didn't do it, somebody *else* would.

There has never been any corruption in the formation of Microsoft, they pioneered a business in which legalities were grey even to the best lawyers, litigation is unavoidable when you're a market leader in technology. If you think Bill Gates and Microsoft are evil then you simply are clueless...

Try comparing Bill and Microsoft's tactics to the likes of the Carlyle Group, profiteering off death, or pharmaceutical companies which market and research addictions not cures.

My point is there are alot of people who are generating wealth using tactics far more evil than Bill has ever employed. I really don't think they are all that bad and their overall impact on society has been extremely positive. Do you really think if it were up to Apple and IBM that these systems would be as affordable and available as they are today ? The answer of course is no and Microsoft's existance is proof of it.

"Those who fail to understand history are condemned to repeat it," George Santayana

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations. But a position that will not be contradicted, need not be proved. All that need be remarked is, that a body which is to correct this infirmity ought itself to be free from it, and consequently ought to be less numerous. It ought, moreover, to possess great firmness, and consequently ought to hold its authority by a tenure of considerable duration.

If the ACLU was actually doing that, I wouldn't have much of a complaint. When they started defending those who would bring about the end to liberty and freedom for everybody, they gave up any claim to being a legitimate civil-rights organization.

Who should make the determination of whose liberties are protected? If you let the government do this, and say we should trust them, then what liberty do we really have?

Just today, a federal appeals court ruled that an American citizen (Jose Padilla), captured on American soil who is merely accused of involvement with terrorist plots does not have traditional Habeas Corpus rights. These rights have been the pillars of civil liberty since before the American revolution and the suspension of these rights is was a major factor in the decision on the part of the colonies to rebel (along with suspension of jury trials too which we see in the Padilla case, and unfair taxation).

Our founding fathers felt so strongly about the right to Habeas peititions that they enshrined them in Article 1 section 9 of the US Constitution (it wasn't even controversial enough to make it an ammendment). Under this framework, the suspension of Habeas petitions can only be made by *congress* and only during times of insurrection or invasion.

In this case, if we allow the Bush Administration to ignore what has been a pillar of civil liberty for over 300 years, then we do not have a Free country worth defending. The ACLU for better or worse (along with the NRA, the EFF, and other groups) are part of the bullwark that prevents our country from becoming anything less than Free.

As an aside, given that Hamdi was decided basically 8-1* in favor of granting Hamdi (who was detained in Afghanistan) a Habeas petition, I fail to see how the Supreme Court can uphold this current opinion. However, we must remain vigilant.

* It is worth noting that I include the Scalia-Stevens dissent as part of the majority here because Scalia's opinion (which Stevens joined) was that the plurality opinion did not go far enough in protecting Hamdi's due Habeas and Due Process rights. The only dissenting voice was that of Thomas in this case.

IANAL, but many in my family are lawyers who work on many of these types of issues.

Indeed we may be at a crossroads of epic purportions in this country. Only President Lincoln felt that the executive had the power to suspend Habeas. And when it became clear that the court was not going to agree, Congress stepped in. Even so, in the case of Ex Parte Milligan, the courts placed some very strong limitations on the extent to which Habeas could be suspended in areas far removed from the theater of combat (a precident much winded by Ex Parte Quirin).

The ACLU is an important part of the opposition ot the erosion of our civil liberties by an over-extending executive which believes that its war-powers allow it to suspend civil liberties in arbitrary ways for an indefinite time. This should not be a matter of partisan politics, nor should it be a matter or right v. left. Indeed defending right-wing elements of our society (what else do you call the KKK) is as much a part of the ACLU's mission as defending the communists.

BTW, I think that history has been kind to Wilhelm Reich's observation in 1950 that Communism was largely played out in the world. This is why nobody cares about you calling the ACLU "communist" as that is irrelevant today.

You might want to read the later part of this and become more educated on your own government. Oh wait, surely having polls for every detail of government would be better than our current system! Time for a revolution! :V

By the time 911 had rolled around, Ashcroft was no longer a dim senator from Missouri, he had been a loser to a dead guy in the "show-me" state, and subsequently appointed to be AG, by a president elected on less than a plurality, who was trying his damndest to give his base of contemporary conservatives a reason to have hope, by proving the Peter Principle untrue. Bush was successful in this goal, evidenced after his reelection with the promotions of Wolfowitz, Rice and Zoellar. People can and do get promoted past their levels of incompetence. (how's that for evil spin?)

Look, I am not saying Clinton didn't want the power; anyone who actually becomes president is someone who dangerously lusts for power. I don't even like Clinton. I am saying that the republicans are to blame for the majority of rights stripped from humans after 911. They control the executive, the legislative, and many claim the judiciary as well. What has come into being since taking control is theirs alone to shoulder the blame for. (at least until the bi-polar polity gets evened out a bit, and then renew an attack upon the dems and the reps evenly)

In politics, it's all about the spin, there is no truth to be found. The best that can be hoped for is an evenly divided by party and hamstrung government that is forced to enact legislation through a true bipartisan process.

Never trust any politician farther than you can swing a rope from the city square's old oak tree.

"I am not a federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my-opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in polities or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction, is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.
--"The Writings of Thomas Jefferson" Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04.
Vol.7:pg 300 much of it online, (ascii only)

and here's a direct slap at BuShills, from a godless founder of America:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-- Thomas Paine

Guantanamo is Guano upon America

A poster farther up asks "how many tin foil hat types think theres a connection with today's bombings"... All things considered, I find the coincidence of today's bombings somewhat disturbing. If history is to be considered, then there is good reason to question whether or not there is a connection.

How much farther does this idiocy have to go before the proles wake up. Aside from a new and improved Asshole Act, I wonder what monstrous retaliation awaits the next targets of our country's arrogant and foolhardy wrath.

If knowledge is power, then ignorance must be impotence. So I beg you to do what you can in that regard, at least. Share the knowledge. Encourage the ideals. Stand by your neighbors. Voice your opinion. Be disobedient if you must.

Need some red pills for your trapped friends and family? Perhaps these will help:

The Law, Frederic Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

No Treason, by Lysander Spooner http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm

An Essay on the Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1201

Politics and the English Language, by George Orwell http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

The Declaration of Independence http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.h tml

Civil Disobedience http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/civ.dis.html

Common Sense, by Thomas Paine http://www.bartleby.com/133/

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, Ettiene de la Boetie http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/laboetie.html

The Discovery of Freedom, Rose Wilder Lane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane

Law of Nations, Vattel http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm

Best luck to us all.

C

if i beat up my neighbor for being a drug dealer, and the cops look the other way, does that mean that i broke no law?

That said, the notion of Citizen Arrest is not unheard of (even if my link may be infuriatingly Conservative). So, even by your flawed analogy, where the US is another "common citizen" (and not the enforcer, that it really is today), we are in the clear.

Florida law had in place specific deadlines and procedures to follow which would have covered all of the contentions of both sides, if only the law had been allowed to run its course. Counting ALL of the counties was not an option according to _that_state's_laws_, nor was any recount of any county lawful after the deadline clearly spelled out in *their* constitution (reminder: states' rights).

It was illegal for the Florida Supreme Court to overstep their bounds (squashing the state's rights *of the people*) when they extended the non-negotiable deadline for certification of the votes.

SCOTUS should not have been dragged into the whole mess where they did not belong either, but once an oligarchy forms (FL Supreme Court) and upsets the checks and balances within a state, only a stronger oligarchy (SCOTUS) can restore order. Unfortunately, our system of checks and balances in the USA has been discarded, without the consent of the governed. [Sorry, Benjamin Franklin, we were not able to keep the Republic you wrought.]

If the people of the states think their systems are broken, they should elect representatives to change the laws, not appeal to the judges to break them. If you think hemp (for paper, plastics, textiles, oil, medicine, recreation, etc.) should be freed from its unreasonable chains, vote for representatives who agree with you (and me). If you think physician assisted suicide should be legal, do the same. If one state has better laws than another (according to your tastes), then move there, or vote your own state into becoming better. The federal government should not be micromanaging the nation (states' rights again), nor does the judiciary at any level have any business writing law by ruling contradictory to standing law and setting unlawful precedents (e.g. absurd applications of eminant domain).

What makes this recounting (pun intended) of recent history so on-topic is that Bush ought to nominate for the SCOTUS individuals who will uphold the laws enumerated in Constitution of the United States of America, no more and no less.

For the record, I agree that it would be a scary place if everybody "walked in lock step with Bush," or, for that matter, Clinton, Bush (41), Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc., but that is a discussion for a different thread.

Recommended Reading:

The Law, by Fredrick Bastiat (something old)
http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Men In Black, by Mark Levin (something new)

1. I said If things continue as they are, in 20 years

You answered the statement you WANTED to answer by saying

There simply is not censorship here even remotely similar to the horrible things that take place elsewhere

I was not using the present tense - YOU WERE. I was saying that IF THINGS CONTINUE ALONG THE PATH THEY ARE AT PRESENT, we won't have much, if any alternative press in this country.

YOU decided that I was saying that the USA is like Iran TODAY, and responded using such a presumption. Why? Because you're a typical ninny.

2. You're wrong.

Have you been arrested and thrown in prison and then beaten for suggesting you do not like the president? I don't think so.

No, but many people have been arrested and then beaten or tortured or faced with asymmetrical application of state force for much less. Proof?

Here:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-06.ht m

Take a look at her face and tell me that isn't torture.

http://www.constitution.org/ghansen/conghansen.htm

He wasn't tortured? He wa a former CONGRESSMAN (even)!

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

Oh - I guess you didn't read the Amnesty International Report, either...

I could go on and on about the evils of the American Government, but I won't. Suffice to say, you're wrong. RIGHT NOW most of the torture and fascist repression our government does (but not all) is visited upon our victims through proxies - client states and corrupt governments supressing their people in the interests of the local ruling class who support the insane and destructive American lifestyle and get rich in the process.

SOME of the torture is handled here, and is dished out as described above.

Make no mistake about it: the USA is quickly sliding into a new and unique form of "pseudo-democratic fascism" in the form of a 1.5 party state. The "winner take all" structure of the election system prevents third parties from getting any real daylight, and the power duopoly has been so eroded in the past several years by the neocon thugs in the Republican party that it is more of a monopoly of government by and for the corporations.

RS

..the whole US constitution down.. .. by /. effect.

nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC use, without just compensation

nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC OR PRIVATE use, without just compensation

I have no intention of interpreting the statute, when United States Code says "United States means a Federal corporation."

If I am wrong, then how can "United States" own land in the United States of America? How can State of California own most of California? How can State of Oregon be a landlord over Oregon? United States is a corporation, and everyone thinks its a classification. They are all corporations; only people can own land, corporations aren't what walks on foot. United States has a President, it can hold monetary instruments, invest, profit, it can go bankrupt: United States is a corporation from Washington District of Columbia; even so, any code bears witness of incorporation whereas that United States is not a party to the Constitution of the United States but exists as a legal fiction in equity. Searching through Constitution Society, it appears that it is separate from the States united.

You surmise all corporations must suffix their name with "Corporation", such as Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or it's not a corporation? That isn't a regulation to names, but a trade-mark.

Then you go about drawing where none is drawn for jurisdiction. If you try to reference code to law, it will not match; code only needs to be compliant with law, it is encryption so as to not tresspass on another law that it means to be compliant with. In codes, did you not know that quoted material is acknowledging foreign matter and is not a patent to subjection? You've quoted nothing, but have only your codetalk to construe and re-define somthing that is already self-explanatory in the code. And to that code, which I have no patent, I quote "United States means a Federal corporation" and that is all I have to say about that. "United States" has no jurisdiction, only investors. In United States Code, it acnkowledges a feud between the United States and the United States of America; is somthing smelling fishy yet? When this country had gone through its disorders in uncertain times, how do you expect it to re-organize?

You shouldn't suggest what you will never quote. Federal Rules of Evidence is a code sold by the United States Congress. If you need to use it, then that means you are not a party to the Constitution. Rules from a foreign feud in Columbia are a foreign suggestion to neighboring states, but evidence is just plain and peaceful common sense.

Can you quote some before and after statistics to back your claim that crime in the UK is way up ?

Of course I can, but why don't you go ahead and spend five minutes with google yourself?

Try searching for "UK Crime Increase". The fourth hit is what you're looking for. That essay cites " Crime Victimisation in the Industrialised World: Key Findings of the 1989 and 1992 International Crime Surveys, van Dijk and Mayhew, The Hague: Ministry of Justice, Department of Crime Prevention, 1993.", among other sources.

I do hope that the people of the UK get sick of this, and demand a restoration of the Rights of Englishmen as set forth in your 1689 Bill of Rights, which enjoined the sovereign from infringing the right of free men to have "arms for their defence."

-jcr

Science will never present us with a peer-reviewed study proving once and for all that you should be good to your fellow man

Interesting claim! I have two ideas that may spark some discussion.

Economics is a form of science, and one interesting branch of economic study is the study of cooperation. Some economists study this through statistics and computer modeling (http://www.brook.edu/es/dynamics/models/pd.htm). Some economists and psychologists study this through models of happiness (http://www.quebecoislibre.org/05/050415-16.htm). Some study this through research into primate behavior (http://www.primates.com/monkeys/fairness.html). The general consensus is that, although a free economic system requires there to be some level of competition, cooperation and mutual assistance are innately bred into us by natural selection, since it helps us achieve things we could not achieve alone.

Philosophy, the study of thought that gave rise to modern scientific theory (http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm), has always been capable of tackling these moral issues. Some of the the best writing on the topic of justice includes John Rawls "Justice as Fairness" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/067 4005112/002-0144128-7693626?v=glance), in which he argues that the best possible society is one in which we are all treated fairly. He has a pretty clever way of defining fairness, too. If you dislike Rawls, there are tons of other philosophers to choose from who have created logical arguments for treating men justly - Socrates and Locke are two others you may wish to read, or Hospers if you're into the libertarian thing (although his vision of fairness can occasionally sound a little like the mindless pursuit of wealth).

Science is a process that we can use to evaluate ideas through objective criteria. It makes no difference whether those ideas are biological, astronomical, legal, or moral. As long as we have an objective, measurable goal, we can use the scientific method to try to better understand which ideas work and which ideas don't.

To respond to your rhetorical questions, yes, economics does show us that there is a lot to be gained by eliminating hunger. Philosophy and ethical theory does indeed show us that we can achieve more if we pursue our interests living within a just and fair social framework.

What does make me very sad is when people say that you cannot be a good, moral person if you don't believe in God. Neither one causes the other.

This logic is very similar to John Locke's arguments in his Second Tretise on Government, which in many ways is as much a founding document of the United Stated as the Constitution is. The phrases "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," in the Declaration of Independance are directly inspired by Locke. Go read it, and when you are done, come back and tell me what mistake(s) Ann Ryand made - what makes her wrong.

Pay attention to the first two chapters, and the one on Conquest, just don't skip everything in the middle.

Actually, it was Alexandar Hamilton in the Federalist Papers who argued against "factions".

No. Federalist 10 was penned by James Madison, not Alexander Hamilton. Nice try, though.

The point of the Bill of Rights was to say 'You have all the rights that are not explicitly taken away, and here are some that can never be taken away'. There was a big fight amongst the founders because some of them thought people might come to interpret the Bill of Rights as a list of all the rights you have, rather than the rights that can't be taken away.

This argument is made by Alexander Hamilton in the first part of The Federalist No. 84. James Madison, being a Federalist, also argued against including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Oddly enough, he was the author of the Bill of Rights which was eventually added to the Constitution.

Of course, it cannot be true that all imaginable rights which have not been taken away remain sacred.

When the framers say "all rights", they mean all true rights, i.e., the natural, universal human rights which can not be taken away by any truly just government without due process.

The other issue here is that the Bill of Rights does not grant civil rights in an explicitly positive way. It prevents the government from infringing rights, but it does not say whether or not Microsoft Corp. can violate these rights while acting on its own. This is part of the reason why Civil Rights Acts (etc.) are necessary.

MONOPOLY, commercial law. This word has various significations. 1. It is the abuse of free commerce by which one or more individuals have procured the advantage of selling alone all of a particular kind of merchandise, to the detriment of the public.

2. - 2. All combinations among merchants to raise the price of merchandise to the injury of the public, is also said to be a monopoly.

3. - 3. A monopoly is also an institution or allowance by a grant from the sovereign power of a state, by commission, letters patent, or otherwise, to any person, or corporation, by which the exclusive right of buying, selling, making, working, or using anything, is given. Bac. Abr. h. t.; 3 Inst. 181.

4. The constitutions of Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee, declare that "monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and ought not to be allowed." Vide art. Copyyright; Patent.

There's a sequel?!?

Link.

At the time the second ammendment was written the phrase well regulated did not have the same meaning it has today. It typically meant that something worked properly. More info can be found here

I thought that everyone AGREED that the constitution serves to limit the government. You are the first to say that we are talking out of our butt to say so.

Apparently you didn't read the parent that I was saying to mod up... Seriously, what I'm saying is not a revolutionary idea. Go back and look at the Federalist Papers to see the Founders' discussion of this.

But the constitution doesn't limit the "infiniteness" of the government. That's meaningless.

Precisely my point. It's quite impossible to enumerate every one of the people's rights, or the ways in which government must be constrained. The Founding Fathers were smart guys. They realized this, and built the thing from the other way around. They gave a specific list of the things the government is ALLOWED to do. Don't just take my word for it; read Article I Section 8 in the actual document, and then the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Can you tell me what constitutional right social security tramples?

As I mentioned above, the 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

do other government programs like public education and the road system and the ports similarly trample constitutional rights?

You haven't studied this very much, have you? First, let me repeat that everything imaginable is a right of the people, unless it has been explicitly delegated to the government; see the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

However, the courts have seen fit to allow a degree of wiggle room. Specifically, the Interstate Highway System is squeezed into "To raise and support Armies", because the roads are putatively built to move military materiel around.

The justification for education is even more bizarre, coming from the infamous Interstate Commerce Clause: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". That may be true, but the link is tenuous, considering the types of programs being pushed into education (how does sex education affect the ability of the poeple to read contracts and calculate invoices?).

Do you really think that the founding fathers believed that government should not have the right to tax people and build roads?

Given the way that you phrased this, it's an easy question. Yes, not only do I believe it, but it's an objective fact. The thing is, the government does not have ANY rights. Only people have rights. Government has only the powers that are explicitly delegated to it by the people. For a fuller understanding of this, read Thomas Paine's Common Sense .

If I can rewrite your question properly, then yes, these specific powers are authorized in Article I Section 8 (and the 16th Amendment, in the case of taxation).

Well, I have to admit that I'm sympathetic to the environmentalist cause, and I see it more as regulating the commons than as violating personal property rights -- in fact, that's the single important problem I have with the Libertarian platform. I don't want to regulate what people do with their own property, but I want to regulate the amount of pollution that is allowed to leave one's property. Also, I believe the government needs to keep a significant amount of federal wilderness, for conservation.

Other than that, I agree with you.

ersonally, I am opposed to amending the Constitution for any social ill de jur. Even as a church going Christian I am opposed to amendments focusing on school prayer, flag burning, gay marriage, and on and on. The Constitution is not the place to "fix" these perceived ills--it begins at the local level and ends at the state level.

I have some friends similar to you. They're really religious -- one of them doesn't even accept evolution as a plausible theory (I didn't say "believe," since you're not supposed to have faith in a theory) and has a minister for a dad, and the other one's mom tries to convert me every time she sees me.

However, I guarantee you they both voted against the marraige amendment, because they're both Libertarian. They're even against things like welfare -- not because they don't believe in charity, but because they believe that it's none of the government's business. They believe it's the church's job instead.

The United States needs more people like them.

Also check out Frederick Bastiat's The Law.

The fact that stuff like that is not offered in government schools should lead one to wonder about the purpose of said schools.